What were the relations between Carthage and Tyre like politically and economically?

Just a question that I hope can receive some elaboration. I'm well aware that Carthage was founded in the early part of the first millennium BCE by Tyre. What I'm looking for are the feedback loops between these cities. The cities of Phoenicia proper were well known throughout their existence as fielders of impressive navies. They were also capable of maintaining treaties with their descendents abroad if the Phoenician refusal to attack Carthage under Cambyses II is anything to go by. Clearly then the Achaemenids felt it highly problematic to conduct such a campaign without Phoenician assistance. There's also the tribute from Carthage to temple of Melqart in Tyre to consider, as this continues after Carthage is already independent.

How did the cities of Phoenicia protect their commercial interest overseas? Did they simply supply their dependencies and leave them to do the heavy lifting or was it a complex web of treaties and tributary obligations? Perhaps influence was more indirect, where the authority of Phoenicia over its cities was strictly nominal, with the main policy being to ensure a steady trade route across the Mediterranean.

Was there any political coordination between these cities or was it a matter of just acting under shared commercial interests? Was protection from Tyre ever reliable for the daughter cities?

Since Carthage, as a Punic city, was able to create a hegemony with itself at the head from Mago onwards, is it possible for the cities of Phoenicia (Tyre, Sidon etc.) to do something similar?

Or was their relationship simply too shadowy for us to reconstruct to any considerable degree?
 
I may have went overboard with the questions. I don't expect most of them to answered in depth or at all. Much of the ongoings likely went unrecorded. If anyone would like to share some sources on Phoenicia and ancient Carthage I would very much appreciate it.
 
Didn't Carthage supposedly send aid to Tyre during Alexander the Great's siege? If so that would mean that relations must have been quite good even to the end. That said I too would be interested in answers for this thread.
 
I have a question:

over, say, 5 generations or 100 years, what amount of closeness between original city-state and colony?
My hunch is that it varies, depending on a case by case basis. I heard once that some Punic cities didn't grow exceptionally large for much of their existence while others blossomed, but I don't know remember how such claim was supported. It seems difficult to predict when a city could find itself independent or surpassing it's progenitor.

I can see these cities being really close in religious and commercial matters. Maybe the smaller ones are real close politically out of necessity while the larger ones persue a more independent policy without conflicting with the mother city. Any number of outcomes could occur with regards to closeness I imagine. It's definitely something to ponder.

Didn't Carthage supposedly send aid to Tyre during Alexander the Great's siege? If so that would mean that relations must have been quite good even to the end. That said I too would be interested in answers for this thread.
That's really interesting and definitely within the lines of what I'm looking for. I guess in Tyre's case it was better to evacuate as opposed to fighting such a powerful force. I do wonder how this situation would play out against more regional opponents.
 
It is definitely true and documented that Carthage attempted to assist Tyre during the Macedonian invasion of the Achaemenid empire. As well, it was noted by the Greeks that many tourists and pilgrims from Carthage were in Tyre for the festival of Melqart and possibly just visiting, with that, we also assume a large number of merchants.

It is quite an interesting scenario, Tyre, a subject of the Achaemenid empire is seemingly independent of Persepolis and is receiving more aid from its colony Carthage than its supposed suzerain.
 
It should be noted Carthage never really possessed complete political control over the Phoenician cities in the Western Mediterranean until the 3rd century. This occurred a little sooner in Sicily, where the Carthaginian controlled portion of the island begins to be referred to as an eparchate (basically an imperial province) during the 4th century. Otherwise, it was more of a contractual relationship. Carthage would provide for defense, and the Phoenician colonies would send tribute. This is a more advanced version of their relationships to Tyre (Tyre couldn't really provide for any defense). This was not true for the colonies founded by Carthage itself (such as Lilybaeum), which were controlled politically by Carthage.

As for whether Tyre could replicate this, the answer is no. Geography meant Carthage had no larger power in the western Mediterranean they had to deal with for some time. The Greek cities of Magna Graecia were obviously not as strong as the various empires that came to dominate the region. Tyre was always going to be politically subordinate to whatever imperial power controlled the region. These powers would also have a significant interest in controlling Cyprus, which is the only place Tyre could realistically project their power. So Tyre is not really in a position to project any political control overseas.
 
It is definitely true and documented that Carthage attempted to assist Tyre during the Macedonian invasion of the Achaemenid empire. As well, it was noted by the Greeks that many tourists and pilgrims from Carthage were in Tyre for the festival of Melqart and possibly just visiting, with that, we also assume a large number of merchants.

It is quite an interesting scenario, Tyre, a subject of the Achaemenid empire is seemingly independent of Persepolis and is receiving more aid from its colony Carthage than its supposed suzerain.
Wow, so the temple to Melqart served as a pilgrimage center and people of various backgrounds would time their arrival to the festival. So people on a personal level could be connected to the city of Tyre as visitors and not only merchants or tributaries. Certainly a deeper relationship than I imagined before.

Having two overlapping systems of vassalage is indeed intriguing. Finding out the local expressions of independence always peaks my interest, and Carthage and Tyre in that case provide a unique example.

It should be noted Carthage never really possessed complete political control over the Phoenician cities in the Western Mediterranean until the 3rd century. This occurred a little sooner in Sicily, where the Carthaginian controlled portion of the island begins to be referred to as an eparchate (basically an imperial province) during the 4th century. Otherwise, it was more of a contractual relationship. Carthage would provide for defense, and the Phoenician colonies would send tribute. This is a more advanced version of their relationships to Tyre (Tyre couldn't really provide for any defense). This was not true for the colonies founded by Carthage itself (such as Lilybaeum), which were controlled politically by Carthage.

As for whether Tyre could replicate this, the answer is no. Geography meant Carthage had no larger power in the western Mediterranean they had to deal with for some time. The Greek cities of Magna Graecia were obviously not as strong as the various empires that came to dominate the region. Tyre was always going to be politically subordinate to whatever imperial power controlled the region. These powers would also have a significant interest in controlling Cyprus, which is the only place Tyre could realistically project their power. So Tyre is not really in a position to project any political control overseas.
So Carthage essentially replicated it's early relationship with Tyre on a larger scale, while making sure any new cities were integrated units from their founding. I guess Tyre could have the best of both worlds in a sense. The colonies in the west would protect the commercial routes, while Tyre would remain the destination for merchants and be under safe patronage from the large powers inland. Or at least until one of these systems breaks down.

You mentioned that Carthage didn't have complete political control of the other Phoenician cities of the western Mediterranean until the 3rd century. Is it theoretically possible for one of these cities to do what Carthage did and provide defense in exchange for tribute?
 
So Carthage essentially replicated it's early relationship with Tyre on a larger scale, while making sure any new cities were integrated units from their founding. I guess Tyre could have the best of both worlds in a sense. The colonies in the west would protect the commercial routes, while Tyre would remain the destination for merchants and be under safe patronage from the large powers inland. Or at least until one of these systems breaks down.
[
Also, Tyre is still going to thrive economically as long as they are not sacked by Alexander. Its econocally strategic location at the crossroads of the eastern and western trade routes, combined with its strongly defensible position ensures this (its role would be usurped IOTL by Rhodes and Alexandria).

You mentioned that Carthage didn't have complete political control of the other Phoenician cities of the western Mediterranean until the 3rd century. Is it theoretically possible for one of these cities to do what Carthage did and provide defense in exchange for tribute?
Not really, no. Carthage was the only military power in town, especially in the seas, where Carthaginian ships dominated. They also did control certain fortresses, like Motya and (after its destruction by Syracuse) Lilybaeum.
 
Also, Tyre is still going to thrive economically as long as they are not sacked by Alexander. Its econocally strategic location at the crossroads of the eastern and western trade routes, combined with its strongly defensible position ensures this (its role would be usurped IOTL by Rhodes and Alexandria).
Tyre's biggest threat seems to be less the large empire of the week but whether the one that happens to want it destroyed. I guess for a state like Alexander's, with numerous Greek settlements to rely upon, Tyre wouldn't be as important. For another state, I imagine the city would be difficult to replace. The city's strategic importance gave it enough leverage to be a vassal or ally as opposed to being ruled directly.

Not really, no. Carthage was the only military power in town, especially in the seas, where Carthaginian ships dominated. They also did control certain fortresses, like Motya and (after its destruction by Syracuse) Lilybaeum.
Hmm, I guess Carthage lead the way early on in terms of providing some form of protection to the Punic cities. Probably a situation where if one city was already managing defense, it didn't seem worth the effort for the others to contest it as long as they weren't losing their complete autonomy. Do you happen to have a date range for when Carthage gained enough control of the seas to leave potential rival Punic cities as tributaries?
 
Hmm, I guess Carthage lead the way early on in terms of providing some form of protection to the Punic cities. Probably a situation where if one city was already managing defense, it didn't seem worth the effort for the others to contest it as long as they weren't losing their complete autonomy. Do you happen to have a date range for when Carthage gained enough control of the seas to leave potential rival Punic cities as tributaries?
Well Carthage is shown having a signficant war fleet as early as the 6th century with the Battle of Alalia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alalia
 
Well Carthage is shown having a signficant war fleet as early as the 6th century with the Battle of Alalia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alalia
Very interesting, so a few decades before the battle at least, and probably beginning around the time the Greeks were founding settlements in Iberia and Gaul. I was going for a timeframe before this event and wanted to visualize the changes afterward, so this is very helpful.
 
Top